The Pussy Pass: An offensive delusion or an accurate term?

Feminism originally claimed to seek equality but it has long been clear that equality is of little real interest to feminists. We seldom hear a single feminist voice acknowledging inequality when it favours women, or even acknowledging the many ways in which men are exploited and discriminated against. It often seems as though feminists see it all as a game, seeing how much privilege and special treatment they can get away with. Although feminists initially claimed to want a status for women as fully responsible citizens, we seldom hear a single feminist voice calling for a woman to be held responsible for her actions.

The ‘Pussy Pass’ is a term invented to highlight the high level of favouritism shown towards women in most western cultures, especially in the criminal justice system. It is a provocative and possibly somewhat offensive term, involving a double entendre in referring to the gentle way we might treat either a kitten or someone with female anatomy. Those who might take offence at the term might consider terms like “phallic symbol” in criticizing men’s interest in cars and “jerk” criticizing men through alluding to male masturbation. If those offended souls did not object to such terms referring to male anatomy then they demonstrate considerable hypocrisy in complaining now about terms that the men’s movement finds useful.

So is the Pussy Pass a true phenomenon or simply a paranoid delusion held by disgruntled men? Well, lets just look at news articles over the last month or so to see if we can find any evidence of it! Truth is, if we went back another month we would find just as many again. Even this post is very long so grab a cuppa and be amazed; take care though, some of these incidents were tragic and may be upsetting.

Ms Skelton will be released at what appears to be the earliest possible opportunity after serving less than half of her sentence. That in itself is not necessarily a Pussy Pass because some men are also released at their earliest parole date, although I question whether that privilege would so readily be accorded to any man with a similar history of comtempt of Court orders, fraud, child abduction and kidnapping. No, the main Pussy Pass here involves NZ’s latest gender-biased legislation allowing mothers but not fathers to have their children with them in prison. It does seem quite unbelievable that, even with a Bill of Rights that’s meant to prevent new laws from discriminating on the grounds of gender, we see our parliament pass a new law in gender-specific language giving yet another special privilege to women and only women. Notable also has been the total absence of objection to this sexist law from feminists who claim to want gender equality; on the contrary, feminist voices openly rejoice at each new favouritism towards women. Even if one were to accept a primary importance of mothers in nurturing babies, any government truly committed to gender equality could easily have come up with a few policies for men’s prisons that would enable children to benefit more from fathers’ care and influence. But then, if any of our governments had been genuinely committed to gender equality they would have long ago repealed the longstanding sexist laws pertaining to ‘male assaults female’ and ‘infanticide’, both of which treat women’s offending as more acceptable and exusable than men’s.

Another form of Pussy Pass concerning Skelton was starkly evident in the views expressed by the prison system in support of her early release:

It is quite clear that while in custody and even before she came to prison, she has done a lot of thinking and reflecting on her offending and what led to it. She accepts that it was wrong. She is now committed to working within the system rather than outside it

Hang on, this woman committed carefully planned offences to kidnap a child from his father. She manipulated others to commit offences for her. She lied repeatedly about her own behaviour and, more importantly, about her child’s father, falsely accusing him of all manner of child abuse in her quest to deprive the child of a father’s involvement. She used false DNA evidence in an attempt to convince the Court that someone else was the child’s father. Whatever underlying personality pathology motivated her to carry out such a long campaign of manipulation, deceit and child abuse, it’s not the kind of thing that gets cured through ‘thinking about things’. No mention is made of any treatment programmes that Ms Skelton completed whilst in prison; male prisoners generally have to complete such programmes with glowing reports if they hope to be released early. (In fact, the prison system deliberately withholds treatment programmes from male offenders until very late in their sentences; the Parole Board will then inform them that they have to complete a programme before release, a Catch-22 essentially depriving those offenders of any real opportunity to be released at the time that our laws have specified they could be.) The tendency to see women as good, to minimize their violence and the risk they present, and to believe their crocodile tears runs deep in our society, and is often responsible for Pussy Passes like this.

Yet another Pussy Pass is evident in this case, a very significant one. Skelton was allowed to keep her new baby even though she is a proven child abuser. Quite frankly, her decision to become pregnant when she knew she was likely to be in prison during the baby’s early life was in itself a child-abusive and child-exploitative action. She almost certainly hoped that in being pregnant she might avoid or shorten her imprisonment and quite possibly that worked for her. Yes indeed, she did think carefully about things before her imprisonment! In becoming pregnant in such circumstances she displayed her trademark manipulation and carefully planned ploys to achieve her ends. Prior to that she had kidnapped a child, removing him from his support network and forcing him to live like a fugitive for many months. She had used all manner of manipulation and dishonesty to deprive her child of his father’s love and care and attempted to deprive him of a father completely. Well, if a man had such a history of child abuse, CYFS would remove any child from his care immediately. If a woman even chose to keep such a man in her life, CYFS would turn up at the birth to remove any new babies from her. (I’m not making this stuff up; it really happens and quite routinely.) But when it’s a woman who was abusive, the Pussy Pass usually ensures she will get special treatment. I don’t support the way the State traumatizes children by ripping them away from parents except in situations of the most extreme risk (perhaps like this),but I object that such interventions are so blatantly biased against men.
2. Mother admits hitting child

Actually, she admitted frequently hitting, kicking and psychologically abusing her 5yo daughter because she wanted the girl to ‘harden up’, and this was part of a pattern of violence from both her and her partner that eventually killed this poor child. For her offences, Chantally Raelene Baker was sentenced to six months’ supervision (i.e. pop in to see the probation officer every couple of weeks) and ordered to attend counselling and educational programmes. What a Pussy Pass. I suspect the Court blamed her partner, juvenilizing her by treating her as having little responsibility for her own behaviour or for taking steps to protect the child. And it’s possible that the counselling and educational programmes will further promote her beliefs of female victimhood through the ideological, unscientific Duluth ‘patriarchal power and control’ model.

I extend my sincere sympathy to the female cyclist seriously injured in this road accident and to her loved ones; I ride myself and I know how vulnerable cyclists are. I mean no hurt or offence in highlighting the minor example in this article of our tendency to excuse a female’s responsibility. Deep in the article the cyclist is reported as wearing no helmet at the time of the accident but the constable is immediately reported as dismissing this as irrelevant. Well sorry, but a cyclist who chose to ride without a helmet on a busy, wide mutli-laned road in central Auckland was demonstrating a cavalier attitude to risk that may also have been reflected in her riding style contributing to the accident. If this cyclist had been a male, we could expect some implication that male recklessness may have been a factor, and the accident may well have been used to promote the importance of safe riding and wearing helmets. Our society is simply not as gentle and respectful when it comes to men as it is for women.

Actually, this article is a rare example in which a judge refused to give a Pussy Pass. But Francesca Moana Kairau’s attempt to play the Pussy-Pass card was evident in her efforts to blame an ‘abusive relationship’ for her excessive drinking then driving inebriated at nearly four times over the legal alcohol limit, her third drunk-driving conviction in the last 5 years. She and/or her lawyer only attempted this excuse because they knew the Pussy Pass often allows a female to be absolved from responsibility for her own actions, but luckily for the community this particular judge was not so gullible. Perhaps we will see feminists protesting outside this Court, demanding that Ms Kairau and any other woman who cries ‘criticized woman’s syndrome’ be excused for any wrongdoing on her part.

Women looking after a 22-month-old toddler saw fit to leave a 40-litre bucket of water on the verandah and then failed to supervise the toddler closely enough to prevent her from drowning in that water. Yes, we all make mistakes and nobody would wish such a terrible thing on any caregiver. But surely some acknowledgement by a coroner of the nature of the mistakes made and who was responsible would have been in order. If the coroner did make such acknowledgement, there was certainly nothing reported in the article. Someone, either the coroner or the reporter, appears to have taken care to avoid holding these women accountable, and that is another example of the Pussy Pass.

This woman who tried to increase her own daughter’s chances of being admitted into one of two elite schools by phoning those schools pretending to be a health professional and claiming that another girl competing with her daughter had contracted an STD through lesbian activities. The Pussy Pass was evident in at least two ways here. Firstly, the offender’s name is not published. This woman’s fraud was brazen and repeated, and she was careful to ensure that her responses to police questioning would not provide them with any further evidence. With this profile it seems likely that she has committed similar offences against other victims, so why would the Court not be interested in encouraging other victims to come forward as it so often does with male offenders? Perhaps the Court sought to protect the woman’s daughter from any consequence of name publication. However, this never seems to done for the children of men unless the offending was directly committed against those children; Courts routinely tell men when naming and imprisoning them that the consequences of this on their families was the offender’s own responsibility in choosing to offend. Double standards as usual. The other aspect of the Pussy Pass in this case was the fact that the Court called for a psychiatric report on the woman. Such assessments are ordered much more often for women offenders than for men. Somehow our society cannot accept that women could simply be dishonest, violent or bad, so when women behave in such ways there is a tendency to assume they must be ill or that some man must have made them do it.

An interesting international story in which Columbian women withhold sex in order to manipulate their men to build a road. I would expect that if men refused to provide intimacy or any other aspect of their role to their wives they would be labeled abusive, using patriarchal power and control against their wives, deadbeat husbands etc. In New Zealand, such a response from a man would be defined as domestic emotional violence. But no hint of consideration was evident about possible abuse of female sexual power by the Columbian women, a clear Pussy Pass.

Aside from the light-hearted term “accidental millionaire’, even the Chinese government appeared to minimize the seriousness of this wanted thief’s offending, allowing her repeatedly to cross the Chinese border without detaining her.

Unbelievable. A woman and two male co-offenders attack a young man, are all charged with the same offence, but the two men are convicted and punished and she is discharged without conviction. Xenia Gregoriana Borichevsky’s male lawyer is quoted as waxing lyrical about what a nice person she is and her offending is conveniently blamed on others. Great, I guess she was a good actor and probably quite attractive; this version of the Pussy Pass wields magic levels of power! But what mental gymnastics did the judge perform in order to justify treating a female offender much more leniently than two male offenders for exactly the same offence in the same attack? Isn’t gender equality under the law a principle of any importance? Apparently not, or perhaps only when females might get an inferior deal.

And where were the feminists demanding that this deliberately violent offender be held more adequately accountable as an example for others and for her violence not to be condoned? They certainly became a lynch mob when a male offender was discharged for what he claimed was an accidental offence. Oh yes, I forgot, the principle of gender equality suddenly becomes unimportant when the inequality favours women.

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) don’t acknowledge any Pussy Pass, but articles about young teenagers and sex certainly seem to promote it. For example, the article quotes a female sexual health physician who claims that girls are “too scared to broach the subject of condoms with boys with whom they have had sex” and “They worry that if they carry condoms it means they are looking for sex”. As an afterthought the physician added “And girls are drinking more and that impairs their decision-making”. Jackie Edmond, the chief executive of Family Planning, is quoted as saying “I don’t know if young women are feeling pressure to have unprotected sex but what we are seeing is that condom negotiation is still very hard for young women and alcohol adds to the complexity.” In summary, the comments made by the sexual health people referred mainly to girls and implied that boys are largely responsible for girls’ decisions and behaviour leading to STDs. That is another form of the Pussy Pass.

The article also quotes a female researcher, in this case the chair of the Adolescent Health Research Group at Auckland University, Dr Terryann Clark, who blamed sexual abuse for many STDs and reported her survey showing about 10 percent of the under-14 age reported sexual abuse or “sexually coercive situations’. Typical of feminist research, the definition of abuse is widened as much as possible by adding “sexually coercive situations’ (presumably meaning any situation in which a male asks for sex). And why would any researcher think that teenagers are likely to answer such surveys honestly?

The general emphasis on girls in the article and by the sexual health professionals implied girls are the only ones to be concerned about when it comes to STDs. Further, all the sexual health experts quoted were females. If there is a preponderance of female staff, do boys seeking treatment for possible STDs have their genitals inspected by females?

Also, the article claimed that last year 3203 young people in the 15 to 19 year-old age group caught Chlamydia from their mothers. What?!!!

Further, Family Planning chief executive Jackie Edmond claimed that in sex education classes at school her people teach younger children “what’s right and wrong, what’s good and bad behaviour.” Well that’s great, I’m so glad Ms Edmond and her team have been blessed with such ultimate wisdom though I’m not sure any of them have proven their credentials concerning that and, unfortunately, their wisdom is likely to consist largely of feminist ideology. And it seems that in the 10 years since compulsory “sex education’ has seen our children exposed to their wisdom, early adolescent sexual activity, teenage STDs and pregnancies have risen constantly. Ms Edmond then claims that parents should talk more with children about sex and that “sex education should start at home”, yet she and her team of family planning nurses clearly believe they, not parents, possess the relevant moral wisdom and they also assure children of total confidentiality if they attend clinics to assess STD’s, to obtain contraceptives, to get abortions or to seek moral advice; i.e. they deliberately sabotage parental authority and shut parents out of their children’s moral decisions. Interesting stuff huh?

Here is another interesting international example, this time from the US state of Tennessee which has carried out the death penalty on only men for the last 200 years. It seems the state sentences the occasional murdering female to death, but the Tennessee Pussy Pass is like a gold card of invincibility. In this instance, the governor has ordered release of death-row inmate Gaile Owens, not because he believes she was either innocent or justified in hiring a hit-man to kill her husband and father of their two children, but because he decided the punishment was excessive. Well that’s very noble of you Mr White-Knight Governor, but why then would the death penalty not be excessive for men who commit similar offences? As usual, feminists demanded that her violence be condoned due to Criticized Woman’s Syndrome that left her with no option etc etc, no doubt as loudly as they will demand in the next breath that no man should ever escape the full force of the law for any violence. Never mind, the wonderful news is that Ms Owens is now looking forward to being a mother and a grandmother, being with “my grandchildren and walking in the park with my family”. She must have forgotten that her actions effectively destroyed any family. Of course the Tennessee child protection authorities would only see “killing your children’s other parent’ as being child abuse when a man does it, or “killing your partner’ as presenting any risk to your children when done by a male, so Ms Owens’ expectations will be realistic. Well, I’m sure the many men in Tennessee who have been prevented from unsupervised contact with children and grandchildren for truly horrendous domestic violence such as criticizing their wives (or for being disappointing enough for their wives to falsely accuse them of such criticism) will be magnanimous enough to wish Ms Owens much happiness and fulfilment. Go girl!

Oh, by the way, the man she hired remains on death row. Sorry mate, wrong genitalia.

This is about a horrible matter and my deepest sympathy goes out to those affected by this situation. The concern here is that a female, Rachel Ford, accessed a pornography site that appears to have contained objectionable material. She therefore “imported’ and “possessed’ an objectionable publication, and quite possibly did so knowing that what she was about to access was likely to be objectionable. Under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 she may have a legal defence, but there seems to be nothing in the law that entitled her to import or to possess objectionable material. She won’t have to provide any legal defence because she hasn’t been charged. If you are a man, don’t expect the same courtesy.

Yet another variation of the Pussy Pass, or perhaps in this case the Pussy Passport, in relation to illegal immigrants from Asia working as prostitutes. As usual, vague “anecdotal’ claims of “trafficking’ are reported as coming from some feminist group (in this case a women’s refuge in Cambodia), with no shred of evidence. As usual, the article completely ignores the possibility that any of these prostitutes working illegally might be doing so by choice for the money, or indeed that when caught they may try to avoid consequences by alleging they were forced or tricked into it (but it seems none has ever backed up her story with evidence that convinced police to prosecute a trafficker). Neither do such articles ever seem to acknowledge that trafficking of male labourers is much more frequent internationally than is sex industry trafficking.

Don’t get me wrong, I strongly support a major role for midwifery in the childbirth industry but it seems clear that the status and power accorded to midwives has not been justified by the results. A previous government decided to allow midwives to be paid as lead maternity carers with control over funded involvement of medical practitioners, and that decision appeared at the time to arise largely from unfounded confidence in feminist wisdom against what was seen as medical science based on male thinking. The results have been about as terrible as those from the DPB, family law, educational reform and other initiatives based on feminist ideology. The fact that successive governments have maintained the current maternity system in the face of constant evidence of inferiority represents a Pussy Pass of massive proportions.

The Pussy Pass here was from the journalist who neatly avoided headlining the female gender of this drunk-driving parent. A further Pussy Pass seems evident from the fact that no follow-up story ever appeared concerning her scheduled Court appearance, suggesting she was given name suppression. From our experience, there will be a good chance she will also benefit from the Pussy Pass when child welfare services and the Family Court allow her ongoing unsupervised responsibility for her children, something no father could ever expect in the same circumstances.

Ok, so teenagers do stupid things and Australian teenagers are no exception, but I expect that if it had been males who left a condom full of icecream in a toddlers’ playground at McDonalds they would have been referred to the police and probably ordered to complete an adolescent sex offender programme. When females do it, the Pussy Pass applies and we “won’t be taking the matter further”. And remember that girls are said to mature more quickly than boys, but of course feminists only acknowledge this when it suits them, not when it might inconveniently imply greater responsibility by girls for their decisions.

I do not agree with illegalising smacking as a disciplinary method of last resort. However, this mother committed physical violence well beyond the “reasonable force’ allowed for by our previously reasonable legislation, and her daughter’s reported fear of the mother suggested it wasn’t the first time. Yet her sentence consisted of “helping’ rather than punitive interventions and there was no hint that her relationship with the child was in any way disturbed by authorities. This was clearly a Pussy Pass that no father would be given in the same circumstances.

One woman hits another, then the assaulted woman starts to hit the first woman back and a male relative of the first woman steps in to prevent this. Guess who is the only one charged with assault? The man of course. Ok, his intervention was possibly unnecessarily severe, possibly motivated more by anger rather than seeking to protect his relative, and it was appropriate to charge him. But why were neither of the women charged with assault too? This is a very typical Pussy Pass courtesy of police.

In this article Herald on Sunday columnist Paul Little writes “Boys acting irresponsibly and alcohol make girls pregnant.” Some of the readers’ responses pointed out the obvious missing link in Little’s analysis. However, his tendency to absolve girls from responsibility for sexual behaviour is a common one and amounts to yet another Pussy Pass.

OMG. Karen Alice Robinson had previously fostered a 14-month-old baby (the baby and a sibling had been “placed” in her care as an approved foster carer, presumably by CYFS, and she was presumably being paid for this), when she shook the baby so violently it died. She made up several stories about how the baby’s head injuries occurred, and continued to deny her offending throughout her trial for murder. Evidence showed there had been at least one earlier brain injury probably through shaking about a week earlier. The infant’s injuries included bruising to both ear lobes and on her forehead, abrasions on her cheek and bleeding in her eye. A jury found her guilty of manslaughter and she was sentenced to 6yrs 6mths imprisonment with no minimum period before parole specified. In sentencing her the judge noted she continued to deny her offending but nevertheless he took into account “some limited remorse” (how can someone show remorse whilst claiming to be innocent?) and the emotional trauma she suffered since killing the child. Well, that may have been humane and caring but it was undoubtedly due to the Pussy Pass; no male who violently killed an infant could hope to achieve such a lenient sentence. But wait, there’s more! Last month the Appeal Court decided she should have been given a greater discount because her mental state deteriorated after the “the child’s death” (why not use the wording “after she killed the child”?), because of her suffering during the time it took to convict and sentence her (even though this was largely due to her continued denial), and because she decided to abandon an appeal she had mounted against her conviction, which the Appeal Court saw as demonstrating she had accepted responsibility for her offending (I’m not joking)(and how could this have been taken into account by the original sentencing judge anyway?). So her sentence was reduced. Pussy Passes throughout, including the frequently euphemistic language that avoided referring to the fact she had actually killed the infant. I’m not necessarily suggesting such compassion not be shown to offenders, simply that such compassion should not be based on gender.

84 Responses to “The Pussy Pass: An offensive delusion or an accurate term?”

As one reads through this list, and sees women being excused time after time, one cannot help but reflect how outspoken women would be if they truly were held to account in the same way as men. Then wonder how very docile men are.

When women are not treated in the same way as men, the state no longer has any incentive to exercise reason in the making and enforcing of their laws. Objecting to the Pussy Pass is not simply a matter of crying ‘not fair!’ – it’s far more serious. The Pussy Pass is the state’s way of insulating itself from the incompetence and malice it directs at its citizens by quietly excusing those who would otherwise loudly resist: women.

By accepting the Pussy Pass, rather than vigorously denouncing it, feminists are (unwittingly?) deconstructing the legal system that has served their interests so well thus far.

Victoria is a veritable safe haven for women of this type. It’s more than a decade since the laws were amended to permit the charging and conviction of women who raped boys. Since that time dozens have fronted the courts and ONE has been sent to prison.

Another travelled to my town from the US a couple of years ago, was caught in the act, and was SENT HOME as punishment. In the lead up to that punishment the local media regaled us with all the trials and tribulations of her life thus ensuring we truly understood who the REAL victim was.

Another big pussy pass comes to mind.
The longevity gap men suffer from and it’s impact on politics in NZ.
Oh wait! I forgot politicians won’t care about that.
They’ve figured out that it means women represent not just 51% but actually quite a bit more than half the population because fewer males make it to adulthood AND then women on average live ALMOST TWO COMPLETE VOTING CYCLES LONGER.

That last fact is critical. If you haven’t heard of that before or given it much thought, I invite you to stop a moment and think about it’s implications right now.

It means politicians will pander to women’s demands and marginalize men’s issues. After all they go for the biggest voting block in order to get elected.
That has a lot of very serious policy ramifications for men.
One result is much less public health expenditure on men, who have exceeded women in ALL disease categories and morbidity rates for every study I’ve seen dating back to the 1970s.
To give but one example there is nowhere near the money put into researching a screening test or cure for testicular and prostate cancers as there is (and has been yearly for many years) put into screening for and treating breast and cervical cancers. Both occur in roughly equal numbers, but if you look at it more closely it’s actually even bleaker for men as typically an old woman is developing a female specific cancer long AFTER most men have died.
on top of that as wage and salary earners doing the most stressful and hazardous jobs men are paying significantly more than women in tax which then goes to fund public healthcare.
So men pay more and get less. Politicians,many of them at least closet if not open feminists and/or chivalrists look the other way.
This lack of care for male health then results in the longevity gap continuing and women continue to OUTLIVE MEN FOR ALMOST TWO COMPLETE VOTING CYCLES – the circle is so to speak then complete.

Again for all their talk of wanting equality you’ll never hear a feminist advocating for equitable healthcare funding for men.
That’s never going to happen.
Is it any wonder then increasing numbers of people see straight through feminism for what it really is? – a female supremacist movement.
As an aside to this I listened to a very interesting podcast today about the ‘white knight’ male enablers who perpetuate misandry under the general rubric of chivalry.
There is activity afoot in USA to ‘out’ such enemies of men. I will be listening keenly to find out what methods will be concocted and their applicability to the NZ context.

@Skeptik – Thanks for your last two posts. I have thought previously about the implications of the information you present. In all the literature I’ve consulted (and sorry I don’t present reference to them but they are considerable in volume), I’ve encountered many instances where there isn’t just a longevity gap and women have two more voting cycles (at least in NZ), but that the longevity gap has been engineered by women and politicians.

One of many examples is: women’s rights groups (NOW, etc…) have lobbied our Congress (in the US) many times in the past (most recently around 2008) for additional funding of research concerning specifically the effects of heart disease on women, complaining that more women die from heart disease than men and that research is inadequate to support women’s health and that men are treated preferentially.

In their lobby, however, women misrepresent data from medical literature showing conclusively that more men die from heart disease at a younger age and overall than women. These data are actually available and are conclusive but women chose deliberately to misrepresent it. To support their argument for more funding, despite the overwhelming volume of literature which contradicts them, the women’s lobby misrepresents the literature and claims correctly that most people dying of heart disease over the age of 65 are women. BUT they are cherry-picking data. They deliberately omitted parts of reports that most people who have died from heart disease in all combined age demographics are men and that more men than women under 65 die of heart disease.

So, by the time the demographic of age 65 rolls around, most of the men who would die from heart disease have already died and the only ones left to die after the age of 65 are women. It’s not that more more women over the age of 65 die of heart disease so much as it is that more women are left to get and die of heart disease after the age of 65. The men have already died. That isn’t an argument for more research concerning women and heart disease but for more research concerning men and heart disease. But the women’s groups have misrepresented data published in medical journals to manipulate the public with the spectacle of their chronic victimhood at the extreme expense of men. Unconscionable.

And even though the truth has been revealed in Congressional hearings, the politicians are so frightened of the women’s lobby that they acquiesced to the women’s lobby and increased the budget for research concerning women and heart disease and decreased the budget concerning men and heart disease (at least in 2008). See, the women are deliberately lying to kill men and increase their longevity and their voting power in the most fundamental ways by lying.

Dear Hans, thank you very much for these concrete examples. This is evidence based societal analysis.
The news reports often lack evidence about the outcomes and consequences, which is really the driver for judging the seriousness.
News reports are selectively sampled, more often women’s crimes are not reported, even when the newspapers have been informed. Newspapers are as much sold by entertainment value, as news and information (I guess TV is even worse..).
I believe that there are many more women being prosecuted for sex offences, than the papers would lead us to believe.
This creates a hazard for women, as they may believe that what they are doing is ok, as they weren’t fully informed due to under-reporting of prosecutions of women.
Secrecy always leaves a trail of victims.
A large part of young people’s knowledge about life choices is received through entertainment media. Much of it is well researched and of fairly good quality. Some is purely money raking entertainment and may have considerable confusing anti-educative value….
I would be very interested to hear your comments on impacts onto young men, of coerced sex by older women?
I remember a recent comment, where a sister seduced the man of her desires, by plying him with alcohol and making herself pregnant to him. The man was known to be anti abortion and was corralled into marriage. We might look negatively at rape to marriage in other countries and here it was in our own country.
Similarly, with IRD Child Support paying women to make themselves pregnant to underage boys.
Skeptik brings it back to politics, men must be more aware and advocate to protect their interests.
MurrayBacon.

The Adelaide Magistrates Court heard eight days of evidence in the case, during which police alleged Fisher, 48, left the store without paying for $92.92 worth of fresh food. Police were called to the scene. Fisher has maintained she was suffering from a severe panic attack at the time and was not in control of her actions. “I would love to be able to have a rational explanation for what happened on that day, gosh don’t I? But I don’t,” she said at trial.

Gosh, don’t we all wish we had some rational explanations for some of the dumb things we do? And admitting we didn’t, in court, seems to get you off shop lifting charges if you are either a politician or a woman. Better still, combine both with a “panic attack” and there’s just no case to answer. But 8 days to plead “panic” – must have been some story!

Then check out this unbelievable one from our own shores in the Herald today: Lawyer accused of taking groceries.
– Note firstly that the headline fails to specify the gender of the offender; this is typical when offenders are female but rare when they are male.
– Note secondly that the headline doesn’t mention the ‘lawyer’ was in fact a Crown prosecutor, no doubt calling for severe punishments for men accused of offences while popping out to offend herself at morning tea time; by failing to mention ‘Crown Prosecutor’ in the headline the story will attract somewhat less attention.
– Then thirdly note the Herald’s wonderful chivalry in refusing to name the alleged offender even though no name suppression appeared to be in place. Surely, if a lawyer who is entrusted to administer justice on behalf of the State offends in this way, this is hugely relevant to the public interest and welfare. If this alleged offender’s mental health problems were so severe as to require protection from public scrutiny, then surely the Court would have ordered name suppression? (And it seems unlikely that her mental health issues were so severe because, after all, she was fulfilling the role of a Crown Prosecutor during a Court case – unless of course one accepted that the role requires little in the way of sanity or good mental functioning!) And when does the Herald ever refuse to publish a male accused’s name when it is allowed to publish it?
– Fourthly, note the article’s constant emphasis on comments from others making excuses for the alleged offender’s behaviour: “She is in a difficult place at the moment, and it’s nothing of her own doing…”, yeah right.

This is an elegant example of the pussy pass, showing how widespread the chivalrous urge remains even in the era of feminist privilege. It will be interesting to see this woman getting a relatively easy ride throughout remaining proceedings. Incidently, the article didn’t mention whether, after being arrested, this woman went back to Court to continue her prosecution of mainly men.

i read the article..i like this bit…”She is in a difficult place at the moment, and it’s nothing of her own doing,” the source said..if its not of her own doing i wonder who she going to blame..some guy going to bve charged instead?

The evasive nature of coverage of cases like these merely encourages us to speculate. So let’s speculate shall we, based on what we have been told….

She was allegedly caught by supermarket staff as she left the store with just under $200 of food she had not paid for. The source said she did not have a trolley but could not say where she stashed the food or what exactly she took.

Followed by……

“She is in a difficult place at the moment, and it’s nothing of her own doing,” the source said.

Trolling the aisles of the liquor section of the supermarket, she was left with an almost impossible decision; would it be the Hennessy Cognac or the ChÃƒÂ¢teau de Castex d’Armagnac. Ah stuff it; take both! Now what to do; must be back in court in 15 minutes. Although a difficult place, the “ladies” provided the perfect cover to swill both bottles and remove all traces of incontrovertible evidence; exhibit a: two empty bottles stuffed in the trash can (not mine); exhibit b: a pair of glassy eyes (reading case notes). Not guilty – QED.

I think the point you are making is really good, but the title is incredibly vulgar and takes away the power from the article. I’m a female and I’m sick of feminists being so sexist towards men, they don’t make any sense a lot of the time; supporting sex workers and slutwalks whilst being interested in the work of Naomi Wolf. These people are not campaigning for genuine gender justice, they’re man haters. THIS is ridiculous.http://www.facebook.com/wellingtonyoungfeminists?sk=wall

Wow, Billy, thank you for acknowledging that there are problems with feminism. It’s great to get support from a woman. That kind of support is what makes men want to fight for the rights of both men and women.

Thanks for your opinion Billy. I looked at the site you linked to and couldn’t find much problem with it; it seemed to involve mainly women celebrating other women’s achievements and qualities, and that’s great. Many other feminist sites and blogs however spread misinformation and misandry.

I do understand that some will find the term ‘pussy pass’ distasteful. It is however provocative, effective and unfortunately accurate, and I repeat my comment in the posting:

Those who might take offence at the term might consider terms like ‘phallic symbol’ in criticizing men’s interest in cars and ‘jerk’ criticizing men through alluding to male masturbation. If those offended souls did not object to such terms referring to male anatomy then they demonstrate considerable hypocrisy in complaining now about terms that the men’s movement finds useful.

Billy,
Wow! Another woman who comes to MENZ with a message of support for NZ Men’s Rights and a critique of feminism.
That’s great!
From what I recall that makes about 6 women in the last two years.
At this rate we’ll get women onside within, oh let’s see now – 20,000 years.
But wait, I see you just can’t stop yourself from criticizing men by calling their language vulgar. Sigh.
Business as usual it seems.
Just another woman who does filtered listening and tries to mold men to her liking.

I like the term “pussy pass” – I like it a lot.
It gets people’s attention.
I think the title, the term “pussy pass” and the article Hans put together ARE powerful as it’s something people will remember.
The truth must come out, however unvarnished.
In fact the more unvarnished the better as far as I’m concerned.
Better that way and real than the last few decades of lies feminists have spread.
Political Correctness is soooooooooooo 1980s.

Police Commissioner Peter Marshall has apologised to Wellington travel agents Raynor and Ross Wilson for officers’ failure to investigate a woman who systematically stole up to $80,000 from them – despite being handed a written confession…
…The Wilsons said yesterday that, for nearly six months, police had failed to speak to Ms Balm about ripping off their Molesworth St travel agency by up to $80,000.

i went to court a few years ago and got 6 mths jail for drink driving..a female who was sentenced? before me crashed her vehicle on a downward slope putting 3 people in hospital in serious condition..1 was a child/young person..her lawyer offered $1500 reparation the minute he could and it was originally rejected by the judge then accepted later on in the case..she had no explanation other than she had no idea how it happened or what caused her to skid..im not sure if she was convicted or not but discharged without further penalty..the whole courtroom booed and hissed at that one

I think the point you are making is really good, but the title is incredibly vulgar and takes away the power from the article

Just across the way in Victoria over the past decade we have seen dozens of cases involving women who have raped young boys. Every one of them walked out the front door of the courthouse including one who continued getting child support from her victim. My state has become such a safe haven that women now travel here from elsewhere for that purpose knowing they won’t be punished even if caught.

You may find “pussy pass” offensive but I find it entirely appropriate and descriptive of what they are allowed to get away with.

Pussy pass offensive? Oh lets get real here. It’s a pretty tame description for a very real phenomenon.
.
There are many other names we could give the same situation of course. Perhaps a labia liberty license of lawbreaking, or an ace of spades authorization allowance, or a tits and arse toleration warrant, or a bitch empowerment permit, we could even call it a certificate of tolerated criminal charters (c**t class) issued of course by the c**t commission (feminists). Pussy pass is pretty tame.

Actually I am glad that women find the term offensive – they should, otherwise there would be no point using it at all.
.
The way I see it the more offensive the term used to describe this phenomenon the better, given that this pass has been used by women to go as far as murder of men (literally) with impunity. No point using pretty words to describe such a despicable situation as inequality before the law and lower sentences based on the genitalia of the prosecuted.
.
It is also very appropriate to add the word “sloppy” for those women who use this pass more than once (no disrespect meant to those who have been raped by women intended).

The Pussy Pass can be so blatant. Check out this unbelievable example from the news today. Two men and one woman commit the same type of offences as part of a drug supplying group. The woman’s offences were as serious as the men’s but hers involved the added aggravating factor that she committed them whilst on bail for other, similar offending. Guess what? The men were imprisoned for 5yrs 1mth and 6yrs 7mths respectively while the woman received 21 months’ imprisonment. That’s an average of less than one third of the sentences given to the two men! Even when combined with her existing sentence for the additional offending she still fell well short of what was meted out to the men. According to the judge she “had many good qualities but needed to ensure that she stayed well clear of drugs in the future”. Yeah right, we’ll all hold our breaths. Having penises of course excluded the male offenders from any such kind comments and consideration.

If the Titanic were to sink agian, I hereby decree that:
“All evacuees to be priortised as follows:
(1) Children and disabled people first;
(2) Then all women, youngest to oldest;
(3) And two fit-and-abled men per lifeboat, but only for the purposes of applying man-power to oar;

Should any availble space be left,
(4) To be allocated ONLY to men with a proven track-record of not-a-single act, allegation or suspision of having committed any act of violence, real or imagined, physical or imagined”

#31..i applyied for a job 2 weeks ago and got an interveiw..some of the questions surrounded anger management and how i might respond in certain situatins and how well i got on with my X..i didnt get the job

Ford, tell her to get stuffed! She’s not entitled to any of your personal information.
Got a gripe – please stop your deliberate baiting of men who post on this site. Is there no cat in your life that you could groom? Or no slutwalk you could participate in? No flies you could pull the wings off? Men are not flies! Instead of deluding yourself that you’re a shrink, see one.

Actually if this did happen (literally) in modern times, with the approach that women have taken to men I think it is fair to say that many of us would show great concern toward the children, and no concern towards the women. Besides, isn’t there a man shortage in every Western country? We need to preserve what numbers we have. And of course in the interest of maintaining equality, it’s their turn to miss out on the lifeboats.
.
In many ways this is EXACTLY what IS happening today, only the “Titanic” is Western Civilization, and men are building their own arks and lifeboats and leaving the women to drown as the “Titanic” that they have built, the unsinkable ship of (feminist) dreams sinks.
.
I am very glad to be a man at this time, because women have a truly tough time in front of them, when the situation finally turns and they are fully hit with the results of what they created, when a critical point is reached in which things deteriorate at a far more rapid rate as men disengage and leave them to their own devices, it will be too late for them to ever recover. Much as men’s lives are being ruined now, the tide will turn, and when it does, it is women who will suffer. Why? Because they need us a hell of a lot more than we need them.

And here’s today’s Pussy Pass show, folks:Marie Gibson, ‘operations manager’ of a rubbish collection company, tried to falsify documents in order to hide from authorities her inaction concerning safety deficits that had previously killed one male worker and had now been allowed to kill another. Yet “no actions were taken against her” for her attempt to pervert the course of justice. Apparently she ‘panicked’ after the second worker’s death and this made her do it. Yes, I guess one might panic when the authorities are about to uncover your failures involved in people’s deaths, even if the dead victims were only male. For a man, that excuse would be an aggravating factor; i.e. his offending was motivated by panic that other wrongdoing might be discovered. But in the case of a woman offender that excuse will do nicely, thanks very much. In fact, perhaps the dead workers should be posthumously prosecuted for causing this woman to suffer the trauma of panic; that’s male emotional violence according to fashionable definitions. Also, better make protection orders against them just in case they are thinking of returning as ghosts to continue their male power and control tactics.

‘The company’ was fined for its safety lapses and the poor employee who drove the truck in the accident that caused the latest worker’s death (and who bravely stood up to his manager Marie Gibson by refusing to sign her falsified documents) was scapegoated by being charged with dangerous driving causing death. Oh well, all’s good as long as only men are punished.

Incidently, I doubt whether this female ‘operations manager’ had any experience of actually carrying out the operations she was managing, i.e. the dangerous, dirty, physically demanding job of rubbish collection. Never mind, as long as women occupy at least half the air-conditioned managerial offices then we know we’re on the right track.

The article also continued the time-honoured tradition of hiding male sacrifice in employed roles. It reported the 76 ACC-recorded workplace accidents in 15 months at this rubbish company, and the 85 workplace deaths and 445 serious workplace injuries in NZ in the year to June 2011, but not a mention or hint that men were the victims of all or nearly all of these tragedies. (“Tragedies? But they were only men so where’s the tragedy?” “Of course, Your Feminance, I only meant that women tragically lost the contribution of their providers, partners, fathers etc, and ACC tragically lost money paying out for these accidents. Just to be clear…”)

OMG, Hans! I actually wrote a short story about a woman who files a restraining order against the ghost of her dead husband, whom she killed. (How dare he haunt her after she killed him!) The story is inspired by the 6% of child support obligors for whom arrears and interest on them continue to accumulate but are in fact dead and by the crazy woman in New Mexico who filed a restraining order against David Letterman in New York because she believed that the talk show host was sending her psychic messages of love through the television – LOL. The story isn’t funny. It’s a horror story in case you hadn’t guessed. Haunting of the woman by the ghost is a metaphor for the pursuit by child support enforcement of dead fathers.

Holy shit!
That’s incredible!
A State Senator for God’s sake!
She goes shoplifting, assaults a Store security Officer and gets off scott-free – due to having a supposed ‘anxiety attack’.
She’s now back at work creating the country’s LAWS.
As an aside, I have to question the efficacy of someone who has anxiety attacks being a State Senator in the first place.
Call me old fashioned, I simply think being able to function under stress is a needed quality for the position.
Jesus, this is scary – just imagine the crucifixion a male State Senator would get for similar shoplifting and assault.
But hey, hardly surprising coming from a country that’s just rolled back father’s rights to equally parent their children post separation under a feminist Prime Minister.
What next – all Oz men to attend mandatory living without violence programs or go on an ‘offenders’ registry?

A dangerous precedent has now been set in Oz – all Oz women to be made legally immune from prosecution when deemed to be ‘anxious’ – note ‘anxious’ need not be diagnosed – the woman’s word for it is deemed to be enough.
Alongside the crushing of father’s rights a misandric Rubicon of sorts has been crossed whereby Oz women are free to divorce and steal and lash out with impunity because they say they’re ‘anxious’.
The west slides further into the gutter.

@Hans – Sorry Hans. I’m not published. That one about the ghost is not in a readable format – very incomplete.

But I have another one which is a companion to the one about the ghost. It’s about as complete as it will ever be (I say that now, but who knows). It’s about a boy and his father who go ice-fishing. That story features a man-eating fish, a giant spider and a werewolf. It’s a horror story about feminism. Could there be any other kind? About twenty-three pages.

I’ve been trying to publish for the last few years but the market for publishing short fiction is tough. There are some really talented writers out there and competition is stiff.

I read a lot of short fiction. New Yorker, Atlantic, Glimmertrain, Zoetrope, Ploughshares, etc… I don’t know if anyone else has noticed but a tremendous volume of short fiction out there today concerns broken families, fatherless children, divorced fathers trying to maintain relationships with their children or reconnect. Some is really good and by prominent authors. If it’s any consolation, I encounter more fiction lamenting the consequences of feminism than supporting it.

And today we have an outcome to case #6 in the original posting (above) for this thread. The woman who used deliberate fraud to damage the reputation of her daughter’s opponent in applying for two private schools was sentenced today. She received permanent name suppression (of course, as usual, we can’t disparage the reputation of a lady now can we?), 300 hours of community work that she can convert to training, $500 reparation and two years’ supervision for her to receive help for her life’s problems. That is, a total punishment of a $500 fine which she probably won’t pay and she will eventually be let off too. Neat eh?

Again the judge referred to protecting this woman’s daughter from any consequences of having her mother punished, something we simply never hear in the case of a father. The judge happily referred to the offender’s “scandalous” and “deliberate” efforts to “wreck someone else’s daughter’s life”, but apparently such trivia are all academic when it comes to sentencing a female. Apparently, she suffered from “very serious mental health issues” but clearly these had not affected her ability to carry out an elaborate series of deliberate deceptions, nor had they impaired her in taking great care not to tell the police anything that could help them uncover the truth. It’s interesting how often women develop serious mental health problems when they face the possibility of being held accountable for wrongdoing. Someone should just tell them from the outset that they really don’t have to go to that trouble because Courts will usually fail to punish them at all.

It’s interesting how often women develop serious mental health problems when they face the possibility of being held accountable for wrongdoing.

Actually, I doubt very much these mental health problems develop, as much as they can be counted on to be there from the outset. The courts appear to assume that all women are likely to be afflicted mentally in one way or another – which is pretty close to my own observation.

The more one watches the system, the more it looks as if nothing has really changed, other than that telling the truth has become highly illegal.

Down Under (#52): Yes, she can expect much lighter treatment than any man who had done the same thing. However, I tend to support her action as I would a father doing the same thing, and I would prefer the state to uphold adult authority when expressed with force of such moderate degree. The chickenshit teenagers who complained against this mother after viciously and in a pack beating up her daughter don’t deserve much consideration in my view.

Another good pussy pass comparison was in the news today. Waimirirangi Rihipete Tauariki (also known as Elizabeth), as is usually the case for female murderers, was sentenced to life imprisonment with only slightly more than the minimum 10yr period before parole. Since the murder tarrifs were altered to allow various minimum prison times, men routinely get substantially more than the 10yr minimum even when there are no aggravating factors such as deliberately causing additional suffering in the victim, traumatizing onlookers or failing to take responsibility later. This woman (a) taunted her victim about having had sex with the victim’s husband before murdering her, (b) caused unnecessary additional suffering to the victim by stabbing her in the shoulder first before making the fatal stab to the heart, (c) committed the murder at a family birthday party after already wrecking the birthday through fighting with the victim and others, (d) left the scene and the victim to die without doing anything to help or to seek help, (d) tried to abscond and to dispose of her weapon and jacket to avoid detection and consequences, and (e) tried to convince the jury that the knife she deliberately fetched from the kitchen for the job actually just happened to be lying outside on the ground and she had to pick it up in self-defence. Oh well, that’s all ok as long as a woman does it. The pussy pass prevails.

It considers poverty and those who are (fathers) and are not (mothers) really poor and the civil unrest that may/will result from failure to understand the difference.

Not mentioned specifically but certainly implied in this article is the large number of mothers in the US who are not poor but receive excessive child support from fathers who are.

As fathers become poorer, governments will have exhausted their source of money on which they have relied to buy political support in the form of excessive child support from mothers who are not really really poor and do not understand the concept.

Eventually, when mothers learn that compelling and manipulating governments to impose upon and jail fathers, who have nothing left to give, no longer works to satisfy their irrational expectations, they will turn on the governments.

…no point in New Zealand; there are just too many other options available to men to even have to concern ourselves with moaning about a lack of sex in marriage. In my case; the options were, by far and away, more satisfying and indeed preferable to what was on offer at home. I would never have been compelled to sue my (ex)wife for sex; simply that would have been a big conflict of interest, for me at least.

Wow the double standards of the laws in France. If a man doesn’t want to have sex his wife can sue him for withholding it , and is legally capable of forcing him to have sex with her and the law will back her up. But, if a woman withholds sex and the man forces her to have sex with him he would not find the law on his side, he would be imprisoned for rape.
.
Lets call a spade a spade, the government of France is endorsing rape, but only if it is men who are being raped.
.
The fact that the law would give a woman the right to rape her husband is appalling, and I can guarantee that if he resisted he would then find himself accused of domestic violence.
.
Thank God for MGTOW, it really is becoming the only choice any sensible man has.

@Ford – In the US, MGTOW is very difficult because men who owe child support are jailed and their passports and driver licenses are suspended or revoked. So, at least in the instance of the US, governments are taking away the most important option a man has in response to a brutal feminist regime – MGTOW.

As our civilization disintegrates, social organization will return to its more primitive default – a caste. A caste is where approximately 20% of men (call them alpha males) mate with approximately 80% of females – half the population. This half of the population occupies a position high on a continuum of malignant narcissism.

These men and women (malignant narcissists) have no conscience, are solipsistic, are manipulative and deceiptful, have no analytical skills, are short-sighted and opportunistic, are unable to plan ahead, are parasitic, show shallow affect, are paranoid, and are compulsive pathological liars. These characteristics are the result of genetics, neurotransmitter and hormone titers, and developmental environment.

The other half of the population (80% males and 20% females) exist at the margins of the caste, the group, the tribe, whatever you want to call it. If they are not existing at the margins, then they are enslaved by the malignant narcissists (feminists), who rule the caste with brutal tyranny.

This is what feminism is. The few alpha males are outnumbered by a much larger population of very violent females. So those few males must acquiesce to the whims of the many violent females or be killed and replaced. Sound familiar?

These violent females rule the caste (not the alpha males). They waste natural resources because they are solipsistic and have no analytical skills and no sense or reason, and when they exhaust those resources they impose upon the alpha males to make war with a neighboring caste or tribe and steal from them.

A caste cannot advance technologically or practically because there is no critical mass of males rewarded with mating opportunities to invest their labor in advancing it and since the alpha males are outnumbered by the females, if the males are not constantly fighting wars with a neighboring caste to satisfy the females with more resources, then they will be replaced.

Marriage was invented approximately four-thousand years ago. Marriage provisioned for the exhange of labor by males previously existing at the margins of a caste with mating opportunities and families (they could mate, have children and were not socially isolated anymore). Allowed to mate with those females to whom only alpha males previously had access. With these additional males from the margins integrated into a larger social structure, a critical mass of labor was available for advancing technology and civilization was born.

In addition to the exchange of labor for mating, marriage also imposed a male as an obstacle between females and the waste of natural resources. So marriage prevented waste of natural resources as well as proveded more labor to maintain the natural resources preserved and use them for advancing technology and castes or tribes or neighbors did not have to keep making war to steal from one another.

Today, child support is used to condemn men to the margins of existence once again (by impoverishing them so they can’t support a family or even themselves in a civilized society) or worse to slavery (taking away their passports and imprisoning them if they do not provide labor). Once again, the alpha males (government) are acquiescing to the whims of females who threaten to replace them if they refuse or fail. Most men are no longer rewarded for their labor with mating opportunities or families so they are retreating to the margins of the new caste (MGTOW) and advance of civilization and development of technology grinds to a halt.

Furthermore, most men are no longer obstacles to the waste by females (as the government of alpha males is small in number and afraid of them so they just give the females what they want any way they can either by imposing upon other males or going to war or whatever crazy thing you can think of – sound familiar?) and depletion of our natural resources accelerates and frequency and number of wars increases. The remaining alpha males are not enough in number to stop the violent females from wasting natural resources. They can only acquiesce to them. And as our natural resources run out, the females force the alpha males to impose more and more upon their neighbors with war to get what the females want (as opposed to need).

That’s the summary version of our current circumstances and a prediction of where we are headed. Accelerated depletion of resources, more war, devolution to a caste, large scale slavery of men, large scale MGTOW and disintegration of society, the economy and civilization.

Also, in reference to my previous post (#62), it is no coincidence that simultaneous to the invention of marriage four-thousand years ago was the invention of our most important tool for advancing techology and civilization: The Scientific Method. Feminism is antithetical to technology and civilization as it thwarts and perverts application of The Scientific Method.

The few alpha males are outnumbered by a much larger population of very violent females. So those few males must acquiesce to the whims of the many violent females or be killed and replaced.

This is a great description, but is WAY off track in terms of describing an alpha male. An alpha male is the dominant male within any group, and he not only dominates over all the beta males, but all females within his circle of influence as well (note dominance does not mean violence, the alpha male dominates through being far more skilled at social interaction than those around him). These are the guys who when a woman starts getting snarky and unpleasant will point to the door and tell her to use it. Alpha males DO NOT tolerate bullshit, but neither are they overly agressive and hostile. A man who is overly aggressive is trying to prove something and alphas do not need to do this, their status and position in life is self evident to all around them.
.
Women are drawn to the alpha male simply because they actually like a man who takes charge (there are exceptions of course) and the alpha possesses all the traits that make him a good provider (which women are drawn too) but the alpha male does not actually have to ever enter into the situation of providing for women unless he chooses too (apart from f*cked up things like child support, which the alpha is sensible enough to avoid). The alpha never has to worry about opportunities for sex, and he never chases women because he never has too. Marriage was in fact invented to keep betas happy, but the alpha has no need for it, and never did. He doesn’t need a safe secure relationship, in fact as we all know the “safe secure relationship” is in fact the most dangerous position to be in with the current laws.
.
The alpha does not in any way behave like a pussy whipped, beaten wimp (the traits of the beta male), these are the guys who will actually fight back against feminism. The alpha is proud to be male (in his own way), and comfortable in his own sexuality, he has social skills way beyond the average and achieves more in every area of his life (which is exactly why he is dominant). He is not in any way narcissistic, but lives in a totally different league than most of his fellow men (a man who is completely full of himself is NOT alpha, because it is in his interactions that he is recognized as leadership material by those around him, people don’t follow narcissistic people and if they do it is never for long).
.
If anything the world at this stage needs MORE alphas, it needs more powerful, strong men, who know what it is to have balls. Masculinity has been so vilified that the number has dwindled dramatically. If the world had a good number of alpha males in it, feminism wouldn’t be able to survive.
.
As I have said many times before, and have said to many, many men. Grow your balls back. This is something that EVERY man in the MRAs needs to do before he will ever be effective in fighting for men’s rights. After all, how are we supposed to fight for our rights as men if we behave like pussy whipped, castrated eunuchs? There are many things beyond our ability to change, and some things that will take a long time to change, but growing testicles is within the abilities of EVERY man.

Yet another disgusting NZ pussy pass.
Only 2 and a half years AND probably able to get paroled even earlier for killing a man!!!
This is horrifying, shocking scary news.
Yet again the NZ justice system sends a terrible misandric message out which tells everyone how very little men are valued in NZ, and incentivizes female violence through treating it so lightly.

Auckland killer may get early release
NZ NewswireFebruary 3, 2012, 12:00 pm
An Auckland woman who says she didn’t mean to kill her boyfriend when she stabbed him in the neck with a kitchen knife has been sentenced to two years and seven months in prison.
But Xiaoyan Hu, 35, who admitted the manslaughter of Jiacui Xiao, 45, in November may soon be out of prison after spending over a year in jail on remand.
Mr Xiao was found with stab wounds at an address in Howick, southeast Auckland, on December 8 2010.
He died on the way to hospital.
Hu’s lawyer Barry Hart told the High Court at Auckland that she did not mean to stab him and certainly hadn’t meant to kill him, Fairfax reported.
Justice Patricia Courtney said Hu, who has been in custody since her 2010 arrest, was a good prospect for parole.
People serving sentences longer than two years are eligible to be considered for parole after serving one-third of their sentence.

I note that this woman was initially charged only with assault and denied killing her partner (even though he died on the way to hospital because she stabbed him in the neck). The pussy pass often starts with the way police approach a case involving a female offender.

But take note ladies. This and many other cases show that it’s relatively safe for you to kill a male. If you make up some story about being a victim of his domestic violence (anything in the feminist definition will do, e.g. if he hurt your feelings by criticizing you. And no evidence of any kind is necessary), then with a bit of luck you might get off scott free. But if not, you are very likely to have your crime reduced to manslaughter (perhaps it should be called womens-laughter) and you will be out of jail within a year or two. You can make claims like the woman above that you ‘didn’t mean’ to stab him even though you fetched a knife and stuck it into his neck, and the Court will even give this some credibility. Even in the most unlikely event that you are convicted of murder, it’s extremely unlikely you will need to do any more than 10 years. And your female prison conditions will be much more comfortable and humane than any men’s prison. You may get a self-contained, semi-independent flat, you will be allowed to become pregnant and to keep your infant with you.

Whatever sentence you get, you can always appeal with a good chance of success. This woman, who subjected her girl child over a long period of time to severe physical violence that the Court called torture, was imprisoned with parole eligibility after 5 years. Although that seems a most lenient sentence for multiple crimes against a child that would be hard to exceed in seriousness, she feels aggrieved and is appealing.

So, hey, when you’re bored with how your male partner looks or the insufficiency of the income he brings home, you can avoid the hassle of breaking up by simply killing him. With a bit of prior planning, you will almost certainly be able to set up a situation that appears as though you were the victim in the situation and you can then rely upon a smooth ride from police and Courts alike.

NB: My comments above are satirical. I do not intend to encourage any violent crime but I aim to draw attention to the special treatment commonly given to women who kill men when compared with how male offenders are treated, and to the low value placed by our society and its justice system to men’s lives and welfare.

Hans @ #67,
Thanks for your comments.
The scariest thing about them is I know you’re using some satire about women’s ability to commit the very worst acts of violence with relative impunity because it’s a fact, they can. We’ve seen to many instances of the pussy pass to believe otherwise.
Its terribly sad that for a man being alone with a woman in NZ now carries such enormous risk.

…and the Crowns case stated “….that something Xiao said sparked a chain of events that saw Hu walk into the kitchen, select a knife and walk back into the bedroom where her partner sat at a computer. The argument continued and Hu sunk the knife’s 7cm blade into the left side of Xiao’s neck. The knife cut two thirds of the way through his carotid artery, causing a fatal loss of blood.”

So for the record and the future anthropologists who stumble upon these “digital cave etchings” – let it be known that at least some of us wondered – will the CROWN be appealing this sentence? Surely, failure by the Crown to appeal will only add another stick to the (already healthy) bonfire, that the rule of law in New Zealand is well and truly broken.

Bruce @ #69.
What you are describing seems to be manslaughter with intent to cause grievous bodily harm at the very least.
Surely nobody can seriously expect us to believe she didn’t intend harm with a 7 inch knife on a guys throat! And for this she gets 31 months jail time in the relatively luxurious recently built Auckland Women’s prison.
The judge in this case Justice Patricia Courtney has clearly given the pussy pass to one of her sistas.
Being a NZ man I’m sick with disgust and fear in my stomach seeing this.
What is even more alarming however, is I see that Offenders serving over two years in prison are eligible to be considered for Parole from one third of their sentence to the end of the sentence (their statutory release date). From the ‘one-third’ time period or after any specified non-parole period, offenders are eligible to be considered by the New Zealand Parole Board for release on Parole. If Parole is granted, the offender will be released with conditions set by the Board.
That means she could be out after serving a third of her 31 month sentence – after only 10 months.

That’s the benchmark in NZ now.
If you’re a man a woman can argue with you, walk into a kitchen and pick up a 7 inch blade, walk back into the room and slit your throat. She’ll be back out on the streets after 31 months, possibly after only 10 months.
That’s how little a NZ man is worth to NZ society these days.

How long do NZ men have to live in terror?
How much trust do NZ women think they’ll get from NZ men who know the score?

“If you’re a man a woman can argue with you, walk into a kitchen and pick up a 7 inch blade, walk back into the room and slit your throat. She’ll be back out on the streets after 31 months, possibly after only 10 months.”

Or worse. In the US, my wife started an argument with me and when I simply objected to arguing (again) because I was so tired of arguing with her in the recent past, she walked from one end of our house to the other, opened our drawer of cutlery, selected the two largest butcher knives, walked all the way back to the other end of our house, and stabbed me in the back with both knives. Her attempt on my life was completely unprovoked and premeditated. I handled this woman with kid gloves for more than seven years. She didn’t get any prison time. She wasn’t even discouraged from doing it again in any way. Instead, she was rewarded with custody, alimony, excessive child support and an excessive and generous property settlement (everything). Prison? You’ve got to be kidding me.

In the US, more than two-thirds (closer to 80%) of all adult women have criminally defrauded a man through divorce, false rape allegations, sexual discrimination, sexual harrassment, paternity fraud and a variety and myriad of other mechanisms. One-third of all adult women have defrauded a man with just divorce. Almost none have been punished. As a matter of fact, almost all these women have been actively rewarded for their egregious criminal behavior.

My understanding is that Courts can impose a minimum imprisonment that is greater than the default minimum before consideration for parole. But it seems very rare for Courts to ever specify an increased minimum term for female offenders. Personally, I agree with current defaults in NZ for early release on parole. I disagree strongly with the lynch-mob thinking of the ‘Sensible Sentencing Trust’ that seldom says anything sensible but gets a lot of undeserved publicity. There are numerous very good reasons for providing the opportunity to get early parole. However, I would like to see sentencing and administration of sentences to be carried out comparably for male and female offenders.

A cleaning woman stole an empty commuter train in a suburb of Stockholm and crashed it into a house, injuring herself, Swedish officials say.

The four-carriage train was driven out of the depot for about a mile until it jumped the tracks, becoming wedged into a three-storey building.

I am wondering if there is a flow on effect from the pussy pass – if the lack of consequences actually inspires bravado in women. I recall that case a while back in the South Island where a woman tried to highjack a plane.

Gisborne District Court judge Graham Hubble discharged the woman without conviction and granted her permanent name suppression after she appeared on a charge of driving with almost twice the legal alcohol limit.

If this is the same woman that’s a pittance to what she made selling guy’s personal details to repo agents over a long period of time and she used her gang connections to shut her partner/ex-partner up. Ask Jim Bagnall if he still has his notes on that case.

Note further developments regarding the ‘accidental millionaire’ case described in the original post here. The pussy passes at that stage had been the media’s use of the term ‘accidental millionaire’ as a way of trivializing this female thief’s offending, and the Chinese government’s blind eye to a wanted female that they would never have shown to a wanted male.

Although Ms Hurring played a full role in the offending, for example by transferring money overseas, she received nine months home detention compared to her male co-offender Mr Gao’s sentence of almost 5 years imprisonment. Unbelievable but so predictable.

Now around $3 million of our taxes through NZ on Air has been provided to produce a ‘telefeature’ using Ms Hurring as “a strong female lead” to provide us with “the reasons behind her actions” and to tell the “such a great story” about her offending.

Is there something wrong with popularizing and enriching someone on the basis of criminal offending? Yes of course there is but when it’s a female offender, no worries. We can all laugh it off, respect her as being a brave, strong female and listen to the justifications for her greed and thievery.

The photos accompanying this article show the smiles of everyone around Ms Hurring presumably coming out of the Court at some point. Ho ho ho isn’t it funny when a woman commits serious crimes?

We will wager a bet that the telefeature will avoid consideration of Ms Hurring’s sentencing pussy pass, except perhaps directly or indirectly trying to justify it.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.